Michigan is Strengthening Protections for Injured Visitors

TOPIC REQUEST AT TOP-Holmes & Wiseley, P.C. 3227644 EBP 12 due 0402

Michigan is strengthening protections for injured visitors

Have you ever been injured on someone else’s property in a slip-and-fall scenario? If so, you might be familiar with the concept of premises liability. This legal principle dictates that property owners have a duty to maintain a reasonably safe environment for visitors.

Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that significantly changed how premises liability cases are handled in the state. The new law places the burden of responsibility back on property owners and offers greater protection to those injured on their premises.

The open and obvious hazard defense

For over two decades, Michigan law shielded property owners from liability in many slip-and-fall cases by allowing them to invoke the “open and obvious” hazard defense. This essentially meant that if a hazard causing the fall was deemed “open and obvious,” the property owner could argue the injured party should have seen it and avoided it, absolving themselves of blame. This defense, however, often placed a heavy burden on the injured victim, who might have been momentarily distracted or unable to avoid the hazard entirely.

Property owner’s duty of care

The recent Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases of Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil Inc. and Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Michigan overturned this long-standing precedent. The Court ruled that a hazard’s “open and obvious” nature is no longer an automatic defense for property owners. Instead, it becomes a factor to be considered alongside other elements like the severity of the risk and the foreseeability of harm. This means that even if a hazard is technically visible, property owners still have a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of injury.

Grounds for premise liability

This shift in the legal landscape empowers injured individuals in several ways. Firstly, it removes the initial hurdle of overcoming the “open and obvious” defense. Secondly, it allows for a more nuanced examination of the situation, taking into account the specific circumstances of the accident. For instance, a wet floor with a barely noticeable “Caution” sign might still be deemed grounds for holding the property owner liable, especially if the floor was in a high-traffic area.

While the full impact of this ruling is still unfolding, it undoubtedly represents a positive step forward when it comes to protecting the rights of those injured on another’s property in Michigan. Therefore, should you ever be injured at a public establishment in a slip-and-fall accident, you can feel even more confident than ever about the possibility of seeking compensation for your injuries.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »